Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Theist lay out your evidence.

Posted on: April 3, 2011 - 8:22am

robj101

Posts: 2481

Joined: 2010-02-20

Offline

Theist lay out your evidence.

I'm actually sick of trying to debate christians, it's boring and it always comes down to faith or "I just want to believe it" in the end. I do however have an interest in folks who say things like "a series of events occured that made me go to jesus". What events? Any theists care to share this "evidence"? I can only assume they take it as evidence because it seems to make them believe this stuff and for me it would take real evidence.

So what exactly happened in your life that made you believe? I'm hoping to hear something that can't actually be attributed to chance or hard work but I imagine this little thread will die off quickly.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

There's no evidence that it could not happen by natural means. Simply claiming that it's 'too unlikely', is an argument from incredulity and ignorance.

You'd also have to prove that anyone of us do not believe that there could possibly be a god.

If you demand a natural explanation, then you'll never get a supernatural one. If this is the case, then it does not matter what I think because you're mind is already made up on the matter.

But saying there's "no evidence" and repeating yourself does not make it any more true.

The facts are facts, the problem is with the inference from the facts. Read my other posts pertaining to the facts and the interpretation of facts concerning the miracle in question.

redneF wrote:

It's not beyond your imagination.

But, funny that your imagination is less elastic when it comes to 'disbelief'.

That's called 'Confirmation Bias'.

It's one of the most common patterns seen in theists.

Confirmation Bias? I granted the possibility that the particular state of affairs in question has a natural explanation, but it appears that this is the only explanation that you will accept. That would be worse than conformation bias -- you just assumed it was the case and jump right to the conclusion without even giving it another thought.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

"Given a set of competing truth claims, they can all be false, but only one can be true." : Wowzers1

Is English not your first language? "Can" does not mean or imply "Must". A straw man indeed.

redneF wrote:

And you're simply being evasive, because you've been busted, and backed hard against the wall.

Nope. You're backed against the wall so you're dodging. I called your bluff concerning "All Religions" of which you made a hasty generalization. You attempted to narrow the scope to Abrahamic religions.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

"Given a set of competing truth claims, they can all be false, but only one can be true."

Is English not your first language? "Can" does not mean or imply "Must". A straw man indeed.

Bull fucking shit.

"Only one can be true" is pretty fucking unequivocal.

If something is TRUE, it is NECESSARILY TRUE.

You can't possibly think that "can" means "must", even if ripped out of the context in which is was written, do you? I think you're insisting on this, otherwise you'd have to admit that you were wrong about what I said and mean that you did use a straw man.

redneF wrote:

Bull fucking shit.

You're derailing, away from the salient point we were debating.

Now you're just 'arguing' about another topic.

The point was about you believing that Christianity is 'true' and based on mythical claims of a supernatural deity being the 'explanations' for how the universe formed.

You are not willing to concede that:

1- It's a myth

2- That it's a claim with no evidence, to support it's claims.

Which is why I can logically, and rationally conclude that it's 'stupid' to not be highly skeptical of those myths.

I'm not derailing anything. I was talking about miracles, and now you're talking about much more than miracles -- All religions being myths etc, and where in the discussion did I say anything about how how the universe was formed other than in my discussions with you who brought the matter up? If you want to talk about the origins of the universe, start another thread, but don't expect me to post. But that aside, you've given me no reason to think it is a "myth". All you've done is make unsubstantiated claims, make a straw man, make a hasty generalization, derail the thread, and rant and rave in profanities. That does not prove anything.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

"Must" is a strong word. If you want to write it miracles as chance, that's fine. I'm willing to grant the possibility that it was chance, but personally, I believe it was a miracle..."

Why?

"But given the sequence of events, it would seem to be a miracle"

What sequence of events? Grandma got sick we all prayed to god and she got better?

"The experience answered a question for some one -- namely me"

Kinda personal here.

"Which brings me back to the question I asked about my grandmother... If you were there in the midst of the trial we were going through, what would you say?"

What did you expect me to say? "Oh I'm a believer!" or "While you prayed to the god in the sky your grandmother got better while thousands of other people being prayed for died this week."

"We were all ready for her to die, but we had hope that maybe a miracle could happen..."

We hope for things that may or may not happen, hope hope. Clear admission of want.

"I felt a genuine need for forgiveness, and I only found that in the teachings of Christ....that plus a hope."

I don't think I need to say much here.

"Sheer chance is sufficient cause, but in my estimation, I don't think it is a necessary cause."

Why not

"my hope is that they correspond to reality,"

hoping again to make something real of it.

Ok now I'm doing the match (scribble scribble), yep you want it.

If hope isn't akin to want then you may have a case for something, still not sure what though.

As for your negative statement about me approaching religion as if it were not true I approached it as if it were true for over 20 years or least tried to. I'm done with that and I am now what they call an atheist.

You are religious and I expect you to approach it as if it were true as you should expect me to counter it. Fair enough?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

You people are completely without any integrity.It's astounding..."Given a set of competing truth claims, they can all be false, but only one can be true." Logically, if only 1 can be true, that 1 must be true.Do you now want to claim that it needn't be true, if it's the only 1 that can be true????

Where did you learn logic?If they can all be false (you keep missing this for some reason) that is 100% of them, then 0 of them can true. That's not an issue of integrity. You can't see the obvious error in your thinking.

redneF wrote:

Quote:

Are you?

Can't you read?

The question was rhetorical, but you'll probably try and make it say something

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

And why is mine bad?

Why would it be good?

Wowzers1 wrote:

That does not answer the question.

It does actually. There's no benefit to assuming it's a miracle.It would be better to err on the side of caution, and keep testing to see if it will come back.What will you imagine if it does come back?That it was another 'divine intervention'

She goes back for regular visits to the doctor and If it comes back, we'll see what happens then.In any case even if it was a miracle, it does not prevent her dying.But answering my question "Why is it bad" with "Why is it good" does not answer the question at all. Suppose I have a fortune in diamonds -- I ask "why is this bad?" and you answer "Why is it good" no new information, it just asks another question. Unless you're assuming something in the question that is not stated, which appears to be the case here in that you say there's "no benefit in assuming it is a miracle". But that does not and argument against--rather it's a red herring...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

We hope for things that may or may not happen, hope hope. Clear admission of want.

I think you're making a category mistake...

Hoping for a miracle in the context of Christianity and wanting something to be true when evaluating the truth of a matter are not the same thing. The description of "hope" in the context of Christianity is a desired outcome within the context of Christianity -- that is I hoped God would heal my grandmother. This is one step removed from evaluating an inference to God pertaining to a state of affairs. The latter is a purely epistemic context and does not assume that God acted, but it does allow for this possibility. For the epistemic context, I granted the possibility that natural causes were sufficient causes.

robj101 wrote:

"Sheer chance is sufficient cause, but in my estimation, I don't think it is a necessary cause."

Why not

"my hope is that they correspond to reality,"

hoping again to make something real of it.

robj101 wrote:

Ok now I'm doing the match (scribble scribble), yep you want it.

If hope isn't akin to want then you may have a case for something, still not sure what though.

Hoping that my beliefs correspond to reality is purely for epistemic reasons, not religious ones -- I'm not certain (that is 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt) that what I believe is true. If I "want" anything, it is to believe what is true, and I believe that Christianity is true. For this reason, I "hope" that my beliefs correspond to reality in the same manner that one that plays the lottery hopes his numbers will be drawn so he can win big. I'd think that you'd "hope" that your disbelief corresponds to reality too. I don't have a bias toward Christianity as if it were a lucky number or something like that but I do have a vested interest in it because I believe it is true. But if you think I'm interpreting things such that they favor Christianity, I could say the same for one 'wanting" the cause to be purely natural if one is an atheist, because if it is supernatural, that would challenge your notion of disbelief.

robj101 wrote:

As for your negative statement about me approaching religion as if it were not true I approached it as if it were true for over 20 years or least tried to. I'm done with that and I am now what they call an atheist.

You are religious and I expect you to approach it as if it were true as you should expect me to counter it. Fair enough?

I'm religious...yes. But I'm also a realist too, so I want to believe that which is real.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

I said "Given a set of competing truth claims, they can all be false, but only one can be true.". If I apply your logic in that "can" means "must", then I'm saying "Given a set of competing truth claims, they must all be false, but only one must be true." That's a contradictory state of affairs.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

We hope for things that may or may not happen, hope hope. Clear admission of want.

I think you're making a category mistake...

Hoping for a miracle in the context of Christianity and wanting something to be true when evaluating the truth of a matter are not the same thing. The description of "hope" in the context of Christianity is a desired outcome within the context of Christianity -- that is I hoped God would heal my grandmother. This is one step removed from evaluating the an inference to God pertaining to a state of affairs. The latter is a purely epistemic context and does not assume that God acted, but it does allow for this possibility. For the epistemic context, I granted the possibility that natural causes were sufficient causes.

robj101 wrote:

"Sheer chance is sufficient cause, but in my estimation, I don't think it is a necessary cause."

Why not

"my hope is that they correspond to reality,"

hoping again to make something real of it.

robj101 wrote:

Ok now I'm doing the match (scribble scribble), yep you want it.

If hope isn't akin to want then you may have a case for something, still not sure what though.

Hoping that my beliefs correspond to reality is purely for epistemic reasons, not religious ones -- I'm not certain (that is 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt) that what I believe is true. If I "want" anything, it is to believe what is true, and I believe that Christianity is true. For this reason, I "hope" that my beliefs correspond to reality in the same manner that one that plays the lottery hopes his numbers will be drawn so he can win big. I'd think that you'd "hope" that your disbelief corresponds to reality too. I don't have a bias toward Christianity as if it were a lucky number or something like that but I do have a vested interest in it because I believe it is true. But if you think I'm interpreting things such that they favor Christianity, I could say the same for one 'wanting" the cause to be purely natural if one is an atheist, because if it is supernatural, that would challenge your notion of disbelief.

robj101 wrote:

As for your negative statement about me approaching religion as if it were not true I approached it as if it were true for over 20 years or least tried to. I'm done with that and I am now what they call an atheist.

You are religious and I expect you to approach it as if it were true as you should expect me to counter it. Fair enough?

I'm religious...yes. But I'm also a realist too, so I want to believe that which is real.

I'm not hoping my outlook on religion is correct. I look at the evidence for it and have dismissed it as nonsense. There is no hope or want. If I hoped it was wrong that would mean I had some doubt and or a reason for such hope. What reason would I have? You clearly have a reason to "hope" because you see it as real.

As for your first statement you are very opaque and weirdly trying to defend what is probably clear to everyone else. Hoping a god will heal your grandmother infers that you believe in said god and you hope he will heal your grandmother.

This is all too simple and your dance around it is weak. You are trying I'll give you that but you need to come up with something other than the desire, want and hope for me to even begin to consider this as an actual miracle.

I like your lottery example, I almost used it myself in a slightly different context.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

I'm not hoping my outlook on religion is correct. I look at the evidence for it and have dismissed it as nonsense. There is no hope or want. If I hoped it was wrong that would mean I had some doubt and or a reason for such hope. What reason would I have? You clearly have a reason to "hope" because you see it as real.

If you don't doubt, then it is reasonable to say that you've already made up your mind on the issue. No amount of evidence to the contrary would change your mind. I don't know if this is the case though.

robj101 wrote:

As for your first statement you are very opaque and weirdly trying to defend what is probably clear to everyone else. Hoping a god will heal your grandmother infers that you believe in said god and you hope he will heal your grandmother.

This is all too simple and your dance around it is weak. You are trying I'll give you that but you need to come up with something other than the desire, want and hope for me to even begin to consider this as an actual miracle.

If what I said was true, then it is the case that you are making a category mistake, but this offers no analysis as to how I'm dancing around the issue. I was showing how you were misrepresenting what I said to shore up your case and telling you how I believe.

robj101 wrote:

I like your lottery example, I almost used it myself in a slightly different context.

I said early on I'm Pascalian in my beliefs.

It's quite fitting for how I affirm things, and why I make a distinction between the contexts in which I'm operating: that is evaluating my beliefs and acting on my beliefs. If this is the dance you are referring to, then I admit I'm doing this.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

An easy example of my lack of "want" or "hope": I'm not hoping that dancing pink unicorns don't exist, they just don't untill I see evidence for them.

If this is the case, then I don't "want" Christianity to be true or "hope" that is is true either. I just simply believe it is true for good reason and won't stop until I have a good reason not to.

But I said earlier that if I "want" anything, it is to believe the truth, and for this reason, I "hope" that Christianity corresponds to reality. (In other words, "hope" that it is true) How does your adherence to atheism differ from this?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

I'm not hoping my outlook on religion is correct. I look at the evidence for it and have dismissed it as nonsense. There is no hope or want. If I hoped it was wrong that would mean I had some doubt and or a reason for such hope. What reason would I have? You clearly have a reason to "hope" because you see it as real.

If you don't doubt, then it is reasonable to say that you've already made up your mind on the issue. No amount of evidence to the contrary would change your mind. I don't know if this is the case though.

robj101 wrote:

As for your first statement you are very opaque and weirdly trying to defend what is probably clear to everyone else. Hoping a god will heal your grandmother infers that you believe in said god and you hope he will heal your grandmother.

This is all too simple and your dance around it is weak. You are trying I'll give you that but you need to come up with something other than the desire, want and hope for me to even begin to consider this as an actual miracle.

If what I said was true, then it is the case that you are making a category mistake, but this offers no analysis as to how I'm dancing around the issue. I was showing how you were misrepresenting what I said to shore up your case and telling you how I believe.

robj101 wrote:

I like your lottery example, I almost used it myself in a slightly different context.

I said early on I'm Pascalian in my beliefs.

It's quite fitting for how I affirm things, and why I make a distinction between the contexts in which I'm operating: that is evaluating my beliefs and acting on my beliefs. If this is the dance you are referring to, then I admit I'm doing this.

No I see a very small case for basic deism in that we simply don't know everything.. ok maybe not a real case but I see why one may want to believe in it.

Explain what category your hope fits into. The way I see it it is based again on "a god exists" and you hope said god will heal your grandmother. The only good option would be that you hope a god exists to heal your grandmother.

Pascalian, so you are a believer because you fear it could be true, or hope that it is true.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

Explain what category your hope fits into. The way I see it it is based again on "a god exists" and you hope said god will heal your grandmother. The only good option would be that you hope a god exists to heal your grandmother.

Which only exists in the context of Christianity...I don't see how one could hope in the Christian God outside of Christian Context. This is the category of which the hope for my grandmother's healing falls

THe "hope" for for my beliefs corresponding to reality is an epistemic category, My hope in the Christian God is contingent upon this, so they cannot possibly be the same.

robj101 wrote:

Pascalian, so you are a believer because you fear it could be true, or hope that it is true.

Pascalian in that I consider the available options in light of uncertainty and choose one that is most likely true and has the best outcome.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

3. It's wrong on empirical grounds. The effects of prayer on illness have been observed and are not statistically significant.

4. Even if it were evidence it would work against you. Muslims and Hindus also have sick grandmothers. People tend to pray when they become ill, that's the nature of things and most people in the world aren't Christians. If it were valid inference it would provide more evidence against Christianity than for it.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Once again there was no god, just me getting very lucky. The girls left the scene btw ><

Well obviously you were not lucky. See, if you were Christian and had prayed you would have gotten sympathy sex....

I too have been involved in a car crash. I was in the passenger seat and had tilted my seat up to eat breakfast when the car skidded on some ice. It rolled multiple times down into a steep ravine. The roof of the car was collapsed in where my head had been when I was sleeping. Both the driver and myself walked away with no injuries. No prayers involved, unless god considers "Oh Shit" a prayer.

God must really like atheists since he saves us from all these car accidents.

I was in a really bad accident as a passenger, passed out drunk, after having casual premarital sex, after a night at a rave... The night had about as little to do with god as you can get, and I woke up in the hospital because I bumped my head. This was more then 10 years ago. Both the driver and I are atheists and I've never considered god had played a part in saving me. The car was totally destroyed wrapped around a pole on the passenger side...

It's just like the meditating experience, I do it all the time and it helps me deal with stress, but why do people have to attribute some supernatural explanation to it? It's just silly in my opinion.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

Wowzers, I know it is fun to go back and forth with redneF but the actual discussion about how your ideology is bunk is being presented by Gouche and rob101.

Gauche wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

How is the inference from my grandmother's bout with cancer a bad inference?

It contains a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, the mistaken notion that because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second. Sequences don't establish a probability of causality.

robj101 wrote:

While you prayed to the god in the sky your grandmother got better while thousands of other people being prayed for died this week."

Gauche wrote:

You said that your grandmother's cancer going into remission was evidence that Christianity is true. There's a litany of good reasons to stop believing that.

1. From a common sense standpoint if prayer could solve medical problems then things like hospitals, ambulances, medicaments and defibrillators would be unnecessary, but they are necessary.

3. It's wrong on empirical grounds. The effects of prayer on illness have been observed and are not statistically significant.

4. Even if it were evidence it would work against you. Muslims and Hindus also have sick grandmothers. People tend to pray when they become ill, that's the nature of things and most people in the world aren't Christians. If it were valid inference it would provide more evidence against Christianity than for it.

If I am not mistaken this is the reason you keep hearing reference to your "wanting to believe". Whether or not you can be quoted as having said that exact phrase is irrelevant and insisting upon the quote is a distraction. Yes, I referred to your point before as being distraction and this is another one.

The original poster asked for evidence to demonstrate the existence of god(s).

You used your grandmother's health as your evidence. You wisely clarify that it is only evidence enough to enforce *your* belief, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence provided merely demonstrates your own wishful thinking. The argument(s) clearly demonstrating this to be true have been presented several times (I have quoted a couple of them above).

I, for one, would like to hear how you reconcile what looks like a gigantic problem with using your grandmother's speedy recovery as evidence of the validity of your god-belief. Stop playing footsie with redneF under the table and take a stab at the conversation with Gauche.

Explain what category your hope fits into. The way I see it it is based again on "a god exists" and you hope said god will heal your grandmother. The only good option would be that you hope a god exists to heal your grandmother.

Which only exists in the context of Christianity...I don't see how one could hope in the Christian God outside of Christian Context. This is the category of which the hope for my grandmother's healing falls

THe "hope" for for my beliefs corresponding to reality is an epistemic category, My hope in the Christian God is contingent upon this, so they cannot possibly be the same.

robj101 wrote:

Pascalian, so you are a believer because you fear it could be true, or hope that it is true.

Pascalian in that I consider the available options in light of uncertainty and choose one that is most likely true and has the best outcome.

I hold that the bible was conceived and written by men in small part simply due to the chaotic and sometimes nice sometimes assenine nature of the (very manlike) god presented in it. You are saying that you think even through uncertainty the biblical god is by default the better position. Perhaps, but can you prove it is the real position? As far as a better outcome it is apparent you speak of an afterlife yet there is absolutely no evidence such a thing exists. I have heard of many gods and in fact I have looked into them a bit, what evidence have you that the myriad of other gods are false and yours is the correct god because you were lucky enough to have been born in a country where this religion is predominant? Or was this divine providence as well, your very country of birth.

Back on the direct topic, you have presented no evidence of a miracle other than what you personally hope was and is and have given absolutely no good reason for me to even believe it is possible.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy of invalid cause because of the sequence in which events occur. For my to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc you have to preclude the possibility that there was divine causation such that divine causation is not even possible. Why could I not say the same for natural causes?

Gauche wrote:

3. It's wrong on empirical grounds. The effects of prayer on illness have been observed and are not statistically significant.

But this just bolsters the case for miracles though -- in this case, prayer seems to have been effective in bringing about a cure and would be a statistical outlier, which is generally why things that are miraculous are deemed so because defy normal experience.

Gauche wrote:

4. Even if it were evidence it would work against you. Muslims and Hindus also have sick grandmothers. People tend to pray when they become ill, that's the nature of things and most people in the world aren't Christians. If it were valid inference it would provide more evidence against Christianity than for it.

I have no problem accepting that Muslims and Hindus pray and receive healing. The Christian God is not the only one who is capable of performing miracles. I don't base my Christianity on miracles alone, as miracles themselves can be deceiving. The Bible warns against following people who perform miracles for this reason. I believe that other religions are false, as I have stated, so within the context of Christianity I would see the miracles in other religions as either a miracles to point others to Jesus (of which I have heard stories) or miracles performed by other supernatural beings. So miracles in other religions are quite consistent with Christianity. If such things happen, the ones who should think otherwise are atheists...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Perhaps, but can you prove it is the real position? As far as a better outcome it is apparent you speak of an afterlife yet there is absolutely no evidence such a thing exists. I have heard of many gods and in fact I have looked into them a bit, what evidence have you that the myriad of other gods are false and yours is the correct god because you were lucky enough to have been born in a country where this religion is predominant? Or was this divine providence as well, your very country of birth.

The case for Christianity as being a "real" position is not reducible to sound bytes. I feel that the evidence and reasons for belief in Christianity are highly enumerated, and each enumeration would take time to hammer out. I'm willing to do this, but it would probably take more than a couple of threads to deal with each issue. This particular thread was dealing with one miracle concerning my grandmother and look where it has gone.

robj101 wrote:

Back on the direct topic, you have presented no evidence of a miracle other than what you personally hope was and is and have given absolutely no good reason for me to even believe it is possible.

You call it "no evidence". I call it circumstantial evidence. I think the cases and rebuttals have been made. I don't know that there's anything else that can be added (unless you have something new) without arguing this ad infinitum. I was hoping you would answer this:

Quote:

But I said earlier that if I "want" anything, it is to believe the truth, and for this reason, I "hope" that Christianity corresponds to reality. (In other words, "hope" that it is true) How does your adherence to atheism differ from this?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

God exists as a psychological imperative. Man created God in his image, over and over, all thoughout history since man was able to think and communicate (supposition, no proof, but it seems highly credible, doesn't it?)

So, I'm saying God exists, at the very least in Man's mind. Given substance and life through mass belief. I'm trying to think of a parallel proof of existence. Hmmm, what comes to mind is government. Democracy maybe? Democratic government was created solely from thought processes and only exists if believed in.

He is even able to be sentient and think in a manner of social interacting of men with the same mindset and convergance of ideations. I think they call it Fellowship?

Each believer is a host for God's existence in my thought experiment. His holy meme is spread from one person to the next convert.

Alright, the OP asked for theist evidence, and I'm not theist, just trying to play God Advocate. To summarize; my evidence that he exists is in the number of believers. In the same way that Democracy exists.

God exists as a psychological imperative. Man created God in his image, over and over, all thoughout history since man was able to think and communicate (supposition, no proof, but it seems highly credible, doesn't it?)

So, I'm saying God exists, at the very least in Man's mind. Given substance and life through mass belief. I'm trying to think of a parallel proof of existence. Hmmm, what comes to mind is government. Democracy maybe? Democratic government was created solely from thought processes and only exists if believed in.

He is even able to be sentient and think in a manner of social interacting of men with the same mindset and convergance of ideations. I think they call it Fellowship?

Each believer is a host for God's existence in my thought experiment. His holy meme is spread from one person to the next convert.

Alright, the OP asked for theist evidence, and I'm not theist, just trying to play God Advocate. To summarize; my evidence that he exists is in the number of believers. In the same way that Democracy exists.

Only one problem with that, well a couple but the main problem: when the believers die so does the god.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

I was not claiming to have comprehensive understandings about God. I was saying that divine causation is inherent of a theist's understanding of causality, that's all, and in the context I thoughts that what I was saying. In other words, theism by definition implies God is a causal agent.

What you are saying is that in the absence of actual evidence theists posit divine causation wherever there's a lack of knowledge? Would this be an argument from complexity? Where exactly do you see divine cause? The big bang? Abiogenesis? Or is god's loving hand hovering over every particle?

Not at all.

Here are the facts: My grandmother is terminally ill with cancer. The prognosis is bad. She and others pray for healing. She returns to the doctor and there is no trace of cancer in a her body.

The inference is that she prayed for healing to God and God healed her. This fits the given facts and is consistent with Christianity...

There's a given set of facts and the interpretation of the facts I'm giving coheres to Christianity and corresponds to all the facts. For this reason, I perceive it is evidence for Christianity.

It's evidence that your grannie has the constitution of an M1 tank but it's not evidence of divine intervention unless you can provide some more evidence than your assumption that recovering from life threatening cancer can only be achieved using - well - magic. It doesn't bode well for atheists, does it? We'll be forced to rely on medical science instead of the divine intervention of the lord.

You know, Wows, that hundreds of millions of people have prayed fervently for help from the lord to no avail whatever. What provably makes this instance any different?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

I'm actually sick of trying to debate christians, it's boring and it always comes down to faith or "I just want to believe it" in the end.

That's the bottom line.

There's no 'dialogue' possible with people who are dishonest. They are just in 'defense' mode. That much has become crystal clear to me, since I've begun debating theists.

I had no idea that they were so intellectually dishonest, with themselves, let alone others.

And they are lying to themselves. And desperately so.

It's very, very apparent. The way they 'dance' around, during dialogue. The equivocations. The denial. The 'justifications' leaning towards 'belief', instead of simply remaining neutral.

They 'passionately' want to 'see signs', all around them.

Coupled with all the sermons and 'lecturing' on how the 'sinners' (atheists) will try and deceive them, and all the paranoid delusions that are groomed into them, it's easy to see that they're living in this sick fantasy that we're demons and devils, and deviants, and only come out to 'test' their armour.

This 'delusion' is worse than I thought.

These people are really no better than Scientologists. The way they perceive atheists, is absolutely disturbing.

I used to think it was a bit of hyperbole to call it a 'God Delusion', but, I think it's at the very least, apt, and possibly underscoring the complete dysfunction these people suffer from.

This whole god delusion is like a way to derail their thoughts about death, into a kind of 'happy place'.

In this sense, you see the same pattern of lying, denial, defensiveness, passive aggressiveness, and arguing from alcoholics and junkies.

At some point, this will be classified as a mental illness. The symptoms and level of dysfunction are exactly the same.

It's just too radical to become stated as fact, just yet.

But it will.

I'm glad that atheism has really begun to hit the mainstream.

And it's only going to get louder, and more moderates are finally going to snap out of it.

robj101 wrote:

I do however have an interest in folks who say things like "a series of events occured that made me go to jesus". What events?

It seems to me, that the central core is the hope of an immortality.

I think it's actually such a serious desperation of not being able to accept that they will simply cease to exist, after death.

There's no doubt in my mind, any longer, that this is the core issue.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Here are the facts: My grandmother is terminally ill with cancer. The prognosis is bad. She and others pray for healing. She returns to the doctor and there is no trace of cancer in a her body.

The inference is that she prayed for healing to God and God healed her. This fits the given facts and is consistent with Christianity...

There's a given set of facts and the interpretation of the facts I'm giving coheres to Christianity and corresponds to all the facts. For this reason, I perceive it is evidence for Christianity.

It's evidence that your grannie has the constitution of an M1 tank but it's not evidence of divine intervention unless you can provide some more evidence than your assumption that recovering from life threatening cancer can only be achieved using - well - magic. It doesn't bode well for atheists, does it? We'll be forced to rely on medical science instead of the divine intervention of the lord.

You know, Wows, that hundreds of millions of people have prayed fervently for help from the lord to no avail whatever. What provably makes this instance any different?

There's nothing terribly noteworthy, if you understand what cancer is, which is simply a growth caused by abnormal and rapid cell division, that simply occurs.

Babies can be born with cancer.

Do theists run around claiming it's a miracle then?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

We do have a generation growing up right now of which many are atheists, they just don't talk about it. They seem to go with my idea that atheism is a label, a label that should be as smart as asking if I breathe air. Religious is a label and atheism is normal.

edit: directed @ redneF btw

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

If you demand a natural explanation, then you'll never get a supernatural one. If this is the case, then it does not matter what I think because you're mind is already made up on the matter.

But saying there's "no evidence" and repeating yourself does not make it any more true.

The facts are facts, the problem is with the inference from the facts. Read my other posts pertaining to the facts and the interpretation of facts concerning the miracle in question.

You and I are not equipped to comprehend supernatural explanations. It does not matter what you say about our minds being made up. Just show any proof, ever, of supernatural interference on planet earth and we can consider this whole issue in a different light. But if there's no evidence at all, apart from a situation you assert proves christianity, what are we going to say?

Wows, the facts are not the facts. The likely truth is that in this instance, due to natural causes we do not understand, your Gran has thrown off her affliction. You are well to assert that it was god who dunnit but have the decency to admit you are simply asserting this on the basis of no direct proof whatever.

This discussion makes me feel yet again that believers and non believers have some neurological variation that makes them see differently.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

I never said that prayer solves everything. I (and my grandmother) still go to the doctor when we are sick.

If prayer solved anything it could be used at some times in some circumstances instead of those other things but it cannot.

Wowzers1 wrote:

post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy of invalid cause because of the sequence in which events occur. For my to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc you have to preclude the possibility that there was divine causation such that divine causation is not even possible. Why could I not say the same for natural causes?

Divine causation would be one possible causal connection. It is a post hoc fallacy because you can't provide evidence or reason to establish that or any other causal connection.

To establish a causal connection between two events, controls have to be established to rule out other factors, otherwise it's merely anecdotal. Since there was no control group that was identical to your grandmother in all relevant ways except for the suspected causal agent it's not clear what happened to your grandmother. It could have been divine intervention, or chance, or some other unknown causal factor. I think you might be confused about what makes a post hoc fallacy. It's a fallacy because it's an unjustified causal conclusion. Even if it were a miracle it would still be a post hoc fallacy.

Wowzers1 wrote:

But this just bolsters the case for miracles though -- in this case, prayer seems to have been effective in bringing about a cure and would be a statistical outlier, which is generally why things that are miraculous are deemed so because defy normal experience.

An outlier can be a chance phenomenon. Also I don't know your grandmother's condition or the survival statistics associated with that so I can't really comment on that.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I have no problem accepting that Muslims and Hindus pray and receive healing. The Christian God is not the only one who is capable of performing miracles. I don't base my Christianity on miracles alone, as miracles themselves can be deceiving. The Bible warns against following people who perform miracles for this reason. I believe that other religions are false, as I have stated, so within the context of Christianity I would see the miracles in other religions as either a miracles to point others to Jesus (of which I have heard stories) or miracles performed by other supernatural beings. So miracles in other religions are quite consistent with Christianity. If such things happen, the ones who should think otherwise are atheists...

Miracles in other religions may be consistent with Christianity, what I'm claiming is inconsistent is your rationale. You said - I'm paraphrasing - other religions are false because Christianity is true and the answered prayers of sick Christian grandmothers is evidence for your religion.

If you're not at this point willing to concede that the prayers of Muslim and Hindu grandmothers are evidence for those religions and that's evidence against Christianity then it's just special pleading. You made a rule, then made an exception to the rule based on an irrelevant characteristic because you needed to evade it.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

The most powerful aspect of these forums, are the former theists, who were some of the hardest core, and most knowledgeable believers I've ever known, and have now become atheists, and can really relate to theists.

robj101 wrote:

We do have a generation growing up right now of which many are atheists, they just don't talk about it.

There's actually plenty of talk in the media about it.

I had no idea, because I don't watch TV.

But there's plenty of celebrities who are coming out and speaking very openly, and mockingly about theism.

No matter what theists hope will happen, we are in the information age, and hi tech science and technology is rapidly becoming a central figure in our day to day lives.

Priests thumping on about Adam and Eve, are going to be preaching to more and more crickets.

robj101 wrote:

They seem to go with my idea that atheism is a label

Christians and Muslims have always been militant towards heretics and apostates. Anyone who will not assimilate.

Christians have just used 'atheist' as a euphemism for 'sinner' and 'evil' and 'apostate'.

They're haters.

Liars and manipulators.

Plain and simple.

It's become absolutely crystal clear to me.

There's no debate.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

If prayer solved anything it could be used at some times in some circumstances instead of those other things but it cannot.

That precludes the possibility that it does or can... I have reason to believe otherwise.

Gauche wrote:

Divine causation would be one possible causal connection. It is a post hoc fallacy because you can't provide evidence or reason to establish that or any other causal connection.

If divine causation is possible, and the inference to divine causation fits the facts, then it is not an invalid cause, thereby not a post hoc fallacy. You have to show how the inference to divine causation from the given facts is a bad inference. The only reason you've given is that it does not meet your demand for more evidence or reason, but I think there is sufficient reason, given the facts, to make the inference.

Gauche wrote:

To establish a causal connection between two events, controls have to be established to rule out other factors, otherwise it's merely anecdotal. Since there was no control group that was identical to your grandmother in all relevant ways except for the suspected causal agent it's not clear what happened to your grandmother. It could have been divine intervention, or chance, or some other unknown causal factor. I think you might be confused about what makes a post hoc fallacy. It's a fallacy because it's an unjustified causal conclusion. Even if it were a miracle it would still be a post hoc fallacy.

You're trying to treat this as if it were some sort of scientific test. Miracles are neither testable with control groups or reproducible -- two necessary conditions needed to create scientific tests. To attempt to superimpose scientific testing on this and dismissing because it does not fit the criterion is an abuse of science. Miracles on the other hand, are historical. You should approach it with a historical method if you want to ascertain the truth of the matter. I granted that it was circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence is evidence nevertheless. You don't think that divine causation is a valid cause, and for that reason you think it is a post hoc fallacy. You have to show why the inference to divine causation is bad for it to be a post hoc fallacy.

Gauche wrote:

An outlier can be a chance phenomenon. Also I don't know your grandmother's condition or the survival statistics associated with that so I can't really comment on that.

I granted that it could be a chance phenomenon. But this would require rejecting some of the facts as having no significance at all, as you do concerning the nature of prayer. But the healing against all odds then requires some other explanation, of which the doctor could not give.

Gauche wrote:

If you're not at this point willing to concede that the prayers of Muslim and Hindu grandmothers are evidence for those religions and that's evidence against Christianity then it's just special pleading. You made a rule, then made an exception to the rule based on an irrelevant characteristic because you needed to evade it.

I was giving a two layered answer: one layer in the context of Christianity, which provides an interpretive framework for the events in other religions and one layer in the context of epistemology. Even if I'm wrong in Christianity about the nature of the miracles in other religions, it still serves as evidence against atheism. In any case, the only one that is denying them as evidence for the supernatural is the atheist. I'm not special pleading because I how I understand miracles in other religions is consistent with Christianity. I'm not claiming any kind of immunity to your allegation, I'm just permuting it to the case of Christianity.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

You and I are not equipped to comprehend supernatural explanations. It does not matter what you say about our minds being made up. Just show any proof, ever, of supernatural interference on planet earth and we can consider this whole issue in a different light. But if there's no evidence at all, apart from a situation you assert proves christianity, what are we going to say?

What I have said is just one thing, there is other evidence for Christianity and I think the reason and evidence for Christianity is highly enumerable and each enumeration would require time to hammer out. It's not something that's going to be uncovered in one sitting.

With that said, what would be required, then, to comprehend supernatural explanation? And what would the evidence look like if it did exist?

Atheistextremist wrote:

Wows, the facts are not the facts. The likely truth is that in this instance, due to natural causes we do not understand, your Gran has thrown off her affliction. You are well to assert that it was god who dunnit but have the decency to admit you are simply asserting this on the basis of no direct proof whatever.

I never claimed it was direct proof. I said it was circumstantial. My inference is not a fact, but it fits the facts if divine causation is permissible. The facts are as I outline: My grandmother had a bad case of leukemia, the prognosis was bad, she and many others prayed for healing, and she returned to the doctor who found no trace of cancer in her body. These four statements are the facts to which I was talking about.

Atheistextremist wrote:

This discussion makes me feel yet again that believers and non believers have some neurological variation that makes them see differently.

If there is, I'd like to see a studies about it...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

If miracles are non-random, then they are testable. If one claimed that praying increased someone's chance of being healed, but rejected the possibility of scientific investigation, then they are being inconsistent. Even if God purposely withheld all of his healing powers when a double blind experiment is being conducted, scientists could still attempt to collect information from patients that "appeared" to have been "healed." Not to mention, this implies that God values not revealing himself over saving people, which, like many other supposed attributes of the Christian God, is quite morally repugnant.

Not knowing how a person got better does not provide any evidence for a supernatural cause over a natural cause. This is nothing more than a God of the gaps and a failure of Occam's Razor. All you have is anecdotal correlation: praying >> got better, which certainly doesn't show causation. Pure confirmation bias, you've focused on this single case and ignored praying >> didn't get better and didn't pray >> got better.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

That precludes the possibility that it does or can... I have reason to believe otherwise.

Your reason is anecdotal it can't be reproduced or even explained.

Wowzers1 wrote:

If divine causation is possible, and the inference to divine causation fits the facts, then it is not an invalid cause, thereby not a post hoc fallacy. You have to show how the inference to divine causation from the given facts is a bad inference. The only reason you've given is that it does not meet your demand for more evidence or reason, but I think there is sufficient reason, given the facts, to make the inference.

To demand more evidence would presuppose the possibility of more evidence.The nature of the claim you're making is the limiting factor here. You admit this claim can't be supported empirically. So the only thing you can refer to that I can see is the sequence of events. That's a post hoc fallacy.

Wowzers1 wrote:

You're trying to treat this as if it were some sort of scientific test. Miracles are neither testable with control groups or reproducible -- two necessary to create scientific tests. To attempt to superimpose scientific testing on this is an abuse of science. Miracles on the other hand, are historical. You should approach it with a historical method if you want to ascertain. I granted that it was circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence is evidence nevertheless.

Even if I did approach it with an historical method the narrative of an eye witness could only establish something that was plausible, certainly not miracles.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I was giving a two layered answer: one layer in the context of Christianity, which provides an interpretive framework for the events in other religions and one layer in the context of epistemology. Even if I'm wrong in Christianity about the nature of the miracles in other religions, it still serves as evidence against atheism. In any case, the only one that is denying them as evidence for the supernatural is the atheist. I'm not special pleading because I how I understand miracles in other religions is consistent with Christianity. I'm not claiming any kind of immunity to your allegation, I'm just permuting it to the case of Christianity.

It would be evidence for the supernatural but that's not my concern because I think it's not valid inference. My concern is that if it were valid inference it would provide more evidence against Christianity than for it so your argument is actually self defeating.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

God performing a miracles explains it without a problem. What more explanation does it require? Because it violates your assumptions as to what is acceptable as explanation you have to reject, but that's not my problem... it's your's.

Gauche wrote:

To demand more evidence would presuppose the possibility of more evidence.The nature of the claim you're making is the limiting factor here. You admit this claim can't be supported empirically. So the only thing you can refer to that I can see is the sequence of events. That's a post hoc fallacy.

The facts have been presented, and I made and inference to the cause from the facts. A post hoc fallacy is only fallacious if the inference to the cause of something is invalid -- you have yet to show how the inference is a bad inference. Demanding more evidence is a red herring if anything... it does not show that the inference is a bad inference.

Gauche wrote:

Even if I did approach it with an historical method the narrative of an eye witness could only establish something that was plausible, certainly not miracles.

Plausible under what rubric? I suppose you mean to say that divine causation is not plausible. But if you preclude this as plausible, then miracles are impossible, and testing is not necessary for you to show otherwise because your mind is made up on the matter.

Gauche wrote:

It would be evidence for the supernatural but that's not my concern because I think it's not valid inference. My concern is that if it were valid inference it would provide more evidence against Christianity than for it so your argument is actually self defeating.

It's only evidence against Christianity if the permutation fails. But in that case, it would be evidence for some other form of theism. In any case, it is evidence against atheism.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

If miracles are non-random, then they are testable. If one claimed that praying increased someone's chance of being healed, but rejected the possibility of scientific investigation, then they are being inconsistent. Even if God purposely withheld all of his healing powers when a double blind experiment is being conducted, scientists could still attempt to collect information from patients that "appeared" to have been "healed." Not to mention, this implies that God values not revealing himself over saving people, which, like many other supposed attributes of the Christian God, is quite morally repugnant.

Miracles do seem to be random -- they are volitions of the will of the one performing the miracle. You could use statistics to show that there's no statistical significance from prayer. But when there is a case like this, it is a statistical outlier, which only bolsters the case for it being a miracle, as a miracle seems to be a violation of normal experiences.

butterbattle wrote:

Not knowing how a person got better does not provide any evidence for a supernatural cause over a natural cause. This is nothing more than a God of the gaps and a failure of Occam's Razor. All you have is anecdotal correlation: praying >> got better, which certainly doesn't show causation. Pure confirmation bias, you've focused on this single case and ignored praying >> didn't get better and didn't pray >> got better.

God of the gaps is used to criticize theist when theists posit that there is no other possible natural explanation. I granted that a natural explanation was possible, but it is against the odds. Now, a highly improbable cure of which there is a possible natural explanation that was not found, or a cure by divine agency -- the simpler explanation is the divine agency. I'm being consistent with Occam's Razor and not punting to God because there is no other possible explanation.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Miracles do seem to be random -- they are volitions of the will of the one performing the miracle. You could use statistics to show that there's no statistical significance from prayer. But when there is a case like this, it is a statistical outlier, which only bolsters the case for it being a miracle, as a miracle seems to be a violation of normal experiences.

Hmmmm.... miracles sounds kind of like chance. Chance does seem to be random. By its very nature, statistics are always full of statistical outliers. Statistical outliers are not rare.

Wowzers1 wrote:

God of the gaps is used to criticize theist when theists posit that there is no other possible natural explanation. I granted that a natural explanation was possible, but it is against the odds. Now, a highly improbable cure of which there is a possible natural explanation that was not found, or a cure by divine agency -- the simpler explanation is the divine agency. I'm being consistent with Occam's Razor and not punting to God because there is no other possible explanation.

Implicit in your assumption is that if something is "against the odds" is that it doesn't happen. Saying something is "against the odds" implies that it IS possible. The odds might be very long. One in a billion, one in a trillion etc. It is still possible, without the need of divine intervention. And in the case of your particular story, I suspect the odds are far better than that. My mother recently went through having cervical cancer.

When the doctors made their first diagnosis they were convinced it was stage four and it was too late. They told my mother she was extremely likely to die. Further tests revealed that it was only stage two, giving my mother a very good chance at surviving, and so far she has. I know other people who have been diagnosed with "terminal" cancer and have survived to tell the tale. So what conclusion can we draw? Doctors don't know everything. The human body is extremely complex and medicine is an increasingly complex field. Doctors can make mistakes, or simply not know enough to always be right. If the odds of such a thing happening were say 10,000 to 1, that means that particular doctor may have seen several thousand people in the same situation die. So the doctor draws on their experience and prepares you for the worst because it is what they can reasonably expect.

It is much simpler and far more likely that we don't fully understand the human body. Which we KNOW we don't. We are still trying to find a cure for cancer. No doubt, current techniques will be considered only a slight step up from leeches in another hundred years. So you are NOT being consistent with Occam's Razor. Although, I doubt you actually care about that.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

God performing a miracles explains it without a problem. What more explanation does it require? Because it violates your assumptions as to what is acceptable as explanation you have to reject, but that's not my problem... it's your's.

If you had proven "god" was performing miracles this would work, you have not so it does not.

Wowzers1 wrote:

God of the gaps is used to criticize theist when theists posit that there is no other possible natural explanation. I granted that a natural explanation was possible, but it is against the odds. Now, a highly improbable cure of which there is a possible natural explanation that was not found, or a cure by divine agency -- the simpler explanation is the divine agency. I'm being consistent with Occam's Razor and not punting to God because there is no other possible explanation.

Not really, You have to first assume such a god exists in the first place and that he chose for some reason to "heal" your grandmother while children starve to death in africa, while a catholic priest was raping a boy, while a hundred other people succumbed to cancer etc etc.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

God performing a miracles explains it without a problem. What more explanation does it require? Because it violates your assumptions as to what is acceptable as explanation you have to reject, but that's not my problem... it's your's.

It could also be explained perfectly by the Loch Ness Monster, Chewbacca, The Smurfs, or the ghost of Mary Pickford. Hell, maybe they all did it together. It could have been a conspiracy. There's just as much evidence for that as what you are claiming.

Wowzers1 wrote:

The facts have been presented, and I made and inference to the cause from the facts. A post hoc fallacy is only fallacious if the inference to the cause of something is invalid -- you have yet to show how the inference is a bad inference. Demanding more evidence is a red herring if anything... it does not show that the inference is a bad inference.

There's no evidence or facts other than that your grandmother got well after praying. A miracle could be possible, comform perfectly with the facts, and even be true but it's still a post hoc fallacy if that's all there is to establish a causal connection.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Plausible under what rubric? I suppose you mean to say that divine causation is not plausible. But if you preclude this as plausible, then miracles are impossible, and testing is not necessary for you to show otherwise because your mind is made up on the matter.

Under any rubric. The only thing an eye witness narrative could establish is the temporal succession of events and to believe that implies a causal relationship between the events is exactly what a post hoc fallacy is.

Wowzers1 wrote:

It's only evidence against Christianity if the permutation fails. But in that case, it would be evidence for some other form of theism. In any case, it is evidence against atheism.

What difference does that make to you? You don't care about the weight of evidence. If you did, you'd stop being a Christian because you just admitted that what you consider to be valid inference provides more evidence against your religion than for it.

You claimed that you don't assume anything is true or false until given a good reason. Either that was a lie or you don't consider the weight of evidence to be a good reason.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft